Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698939637822.pdf (Zambia)
REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS ON THE ANTI-TERRORISM AND PROLIFERATION BILL N.A.B.

NO.

4 OF 2018 FOR THE SECOND SESSION OF THE TWELFTH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY APPOINTED ON WEDNESDAY, 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 Printed by the National Assembly of Zambia REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS ON THE ANTI-TERRORISM AND PROLIFERATION BILL N.A.B.

NO.
4 OF 2018 FOR THE SECOND SESSION OF THE TWELFTH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY APPOINTED ON WEDNESDAY, 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PAGE 1.0 Membership of the Committee 2.0 Functions of the Committee 3.0 Meetings of the Committee 4.0 Procedure adopted by the Committee 5.0 Background 6.0 Objects of the Anti-Terrorism and Proliferation Bill 7.0 Summary of Salient Provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and Proliferation Bill 8.0 Concerns raised by Stakeholders 9.0 Committee’s Observations and Recommendations 10.0 Conclusion APPENDICES Appendix I – List of Witnesses Appendix II – List of Officials 1 1 2 3 23 2 2 2 6 17 i REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS ON THE ANTI-TERRORISM AND PROLIFERATION BILL, N.A.B.
NO.

4 OF 2018, FOR THE SECOND SESSION OF THE TWELFTH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, APPOINTED ON 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 Consisting of: Dr M Malama, MP (Chairperson);Ms A M Chisangano, MP (Vice-Chairperson); Mr E J Muchima, MP; Brig Gen M Sitwala, MP; Mr K Mbangweta, MP; Mr L Nyirenda, MP; Ms M Miti, MP; Mr F Ngambi, MP; Mr A B Malama, MP; and Mr E K Belemu, MP.
The Honourable Mr Speaker National Assembly Parliament Buildings LUSAKA Sir, Your Committee has the honour to present its Report on the Anti-Terrorism and Proliferation Bill, N.A.B.

No.

4 of 2018, for the Second Session of the Twelfth National Assembly, referred to it on 27th March, 2018.

2.0 Functions of the Committee In overseeing the activities of the Ministries of Defence, Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs , the functions of your Committee are to:.
a) b) c) d) e) study, report and make recommendations to the Government through the House on the mandate, management and operations of the Ministries of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs, departments and/or agencies under its portfolio; carry out detailed scrutiny of certain activities being undertaken by the Ministries of Defence, Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs, departments and/or agencies under its portfolio and make appropriate recommendations to the House for ultimate consideration by the Government; make, if considered necessary, recommendations to the Government on the need to review certain policies and/or certain existing legislation; examine annual report of Government ministries and departments under their portfolios in the context of autonomy and efficiency of Government ministries and department and determine whether the affairs of the said bodies are being managed according to relevant Acts of Parliament, established regulations, rules and general orders; exercise powers conferred on it under Article 203 of the Constitution; 1 f) g) h) i) j) consider any Bills that may be referred to it by the House; consider International Agreements and Treaties in accordance with Article 63 of the Constitution; consider special audit reports referred to it by the Speaker or an order of the House; where appropriate, hold public hearings on a matter under its consideration; and consider any matter referred to it by the Speaker or an order of the House.
3.0 Meetings of the Committee Your Committee held six meetings to consider the Anti-Terrorism and Proliferation Bill, N.A.B.

No.

4 of 2018.

4.0 Procedure adopted by the Committee In order to acquaint itself with the provisions and ramifications of the Anti- Terrorism and Proliferation Bill, N.A.B.

No.

4 of 2018, your Committee sought both written and oral submissions from the stakeholders listed at Appendix I.

5.0 Background The Anti-Terrorism Act No.

21 of 2007, enacted in 2007 was amended in 2015.


The object of the Act was to domesticate the United Nations (UN) conventions that relate to the fight against terrorism and terrorism activities.

It was felt that by enacting the Act, the Country would reaffirm its desire to fight terrorism and terrorist activities.
Between 2007 and 2017, there had been advocacy at international level to have a treaty that was legally binding, and whose aim would be to prohibit terrorism and proliferation of terrorism-related activities.

It is against this background that need has arisen for Zambia, being a member of the UN , to take measures that reflected the willingness of the State to effectively implement the provisions of international conventions and treaties on anti-terrorism and proliferation.
The Bill takes into account some of the provisions contained in the Anti-terrorism Act, but with redefined functions in certain instances.

With the enactment of the Bill, it is hoped that the Country would, ultimately, be able to acquire and share knowledge in technology on anti-terrorism and proliferation.

The Anti-Terrorism and Proliferation Bill is meant to provide a legislative framework to, among others, prevent and prohibit the carrying out of terrorism financing and proliferation activities.
The Bill also domesticates the international conventions and treaties on anti-terrorism and proliferation.
2 6.0 Objects of the Anti-Terrorism and Proliferation Bill The objects of the Bill are to- (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) prevent and prohibit the carrying out of terrorism financing and proliferation activities; provide for measures for the detection and prevention of terrorism and proliferation activities; provide for the continued existence of the National Anti-Terrorism Centre and redefine its functions; provide for the offences of proliferation and proliferation financing; domesticate the international conventions and treaties on anti-terrorism and proliferation; repeal the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2007; and provide for matters, connected with, or incidental to the foregoing.
7.0 Summary of the Salient Provisions of the Bill The salient provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and Proliferation Bill, N.A.B.

No.

4 of 2018, are set out hereunder.

Part I Preliminary: Clauses 1 – 4 This Part of the Bill provides for both the short title of the Bill and the definitions of key words or terms used in the Bill.

Some of the key definitions are proliferation, proliferation financing and proliferation related entity.
Additionally, the Part gives jurisdiction of the High Court over the offences under the Bill.

Further, this Part excludes the application of section 26 (2) of the Penal Code to the Act.

This Section provided for the shortening of a sentence-term where a person is liable to imprisonment for life or any other period.
Part II The National Anti-Terrorism Centre: Clauses 5 – 18 This Part provides for the continued existence of the National Anti-Terrorism Centre under the Ministry responsible for national security.

Additionally, this Part provides for the functions of the National Anti-Terrorism Centre.

The Part also re-establishes the National Anti-Terrorism Committee which consists of ten members and shall be headed by the Director-General of the Zambia Security Intelligence Service.
It further provided for the functions of the Committee.

3 Under this Part, the Committee is empowered to constitute sub-committees in order to effect the provisions of the Act.

The Committee is further vested with authority to delegate any of its functions to the Director, member or sub- committee.

The appointment of the Director, other staff, anti-terrorism and other authorised officer is also provided for under this Part.
Part III Terrorism and Proliferation Offences: Clauses 19 – 39 This Part provides for acts that constitute an offence.

The offences listed under the Act are: terrorism, terrorism financing, proliferation, proliferation financing, providing of training in terrorism and proliferation, incitement of offences, possession of articles or information for the purpose of terrorism or proliferation-aiding, abetting and conspiracy of terrorism or proliferation acts.
This Part also provides for funds or property connected with terrorism or proliferation acts to be dealt with in accordance with the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act No.

19 of 2010.

Further, this Part permits the institution of parallel civil or administrative proceedings alongside criminal prosecution in respect of a legal person.
Part IV Declared Terrorist Organisation or Proliferation Related Entity: Clauses 40 – 42 This Part provides for the circumstances in which an organisation is by notice declared a terrorist organisation or proliferation related entity by the Minister.

This Part further provides for instances when a person may renounce their association with a declared terrorist organisation or proliferation related entity.
Part V Restrictive Measures and Sanctions in Relation to Designated or Nationally Listed Persons: Clauses 43 – 53 This Part confers powers on the National Anti-Terrorism Centre to freeze assets of nationally listed persons in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Bill.

It also prohibits the making of funds or financial services available to another person or entity for the benefit of designated or nationally listed person, terrorist organisation or proliferation related entity.
Additionally, this Part prohibits the procuring, supplying, provision, import or export of weapons arms and related materials for assistance and training.

4 PART VI Investigations: Clauses 54 – 61 This Part empowers an anti-terrorism officer or authorised officer to make an ex-Parte application for a detention order to a Judge of the High Court for the purpose of preventing the commission of a terrorist or proliferation related act or in instances of interference of investigation.
Generally, this Part provides for powers of investigation conferred on the anti- terrorism and authorised officers which are only exercisable upon obtaining of a warrant issued by a High Court Judge.

However, in the case of an emergency investigation, the warrant may be done away with but ought to be brought to the attention of a Judge within forty-eight hours of such investigations.
Part VII Exclusion Orders: Clauses 62 And 63 This Part provides for the making and implementation of exclusion orders which prohibits a person from being in, or entering Zambia.

This order is made by the Minister on suspicion or knowledge of a person having been involved in the Commission of terrorism, terrorism financing proliferation or proliferation financing.
Part VIII Mutual Assistance, Extradition and other Forms of Co-Operation: Clauses 64 - 68 This Part provides for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters as regulated under the Mutual Legal Assistance Criminal Matters Act, Chapter 98 of the Laws of Zambia.

This Part also provides for instances when a foreign state may request for assistance from Zambia on offences relating to terrorism or proliferation.
Part IX General Provisions: Clauses 69 –74 This Part provides for the clauses that are generally applicable throughout the Act.

It provides for the establishment of the victims of Terrorism Fund which shall be administered in accordance with rules to be made by the Minister.

5 This Part further empowers the Minister to make regulations that are necessary in the implementation of the provisions of this Act.

Finally this Part provides for the repeal of the Anti-Terrorism Act, No.

21 of 2007.
21 of 2007.

8.0 Concerns Raised by Stakeholders All the stakeholders who appeared before your Committee were in support of the Bill.

They submitted that Zambia is a member of the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group (ESAAMLG), a Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Styled Regional Body.
As a signatory to the ESAAMLG Memorandum of Understanding, Zambia agreed to adopt and implement the FATF recommendations and implement measures to combat money laundering, the financing of terrorism and proliferation.

Stakeholders informed your Committee that ESAAMLG evaluated Zambia against the FATF Recommendations in November 2007 and that the second evaluation was currently underway, with the on-site visit by the Assessors scheduled for June 2018.
The stakeholders, therefore, commended the Government for deciding to repeal the Anti-Terrorism Act, No.

21 of 2007 and replacing it with the Anti-Terrorism and Proliferation Bill, which among other things domesticates the international conventions and treaties on anti- terrorism and proliferation.

Stakeholders however, made observations and highlighted hereunder.
recommendations, as Part I Preliminary Short Title Some stakeholders were of the view that the title of the Bill in its current form was inappropriate as it did not bring out the aspect of prohibition.

They therefore proposed that the title should be changed to ‘Anti-Terrorism and Non- Proliferation Bill’ since proliferation has no connotation of prohibition as compared to Non-proliferation.
Objects of the Bill Stakeholders observed that as it stood, paragraph (a) of the memorandum of the Bill, which set out the objectives of the Bill, was incomplete and therefore proposed that it be recast so that it reads, “ to provide for the prevention and prohibition of the carrying out of terrorism activities, terrorism financing and proliferation activities.” 6 Clause 2: Interpretation i) Some stakeholders observed that under this clause, ‘authorised officer’ had been defined to include among others, a customs officer.
They reasoned that a ZRA customs officer was an authorised person to enforce this law.

Therefore, the law should be revised to read “Officer of Customs‟ as Customs Officer was a rank and not an office.

Therefore, wherever the term “Customs Officer” appeared it should be replaced with “Officer of Customs”.

ii) Some stakeholders observed that under authorised officer, “Army Officer” was not defined in the Defence Act, Chapter 106 of the Laws of Zambia.
To this effect, “Army Officer” should be replaced with “Military Officer”.

They noted that “Army Officer” was an exclusionary term which in effect excluded officers from other defence wings which were established under the Constitution and referred to in the Bill.

iii) Other stakeholders were of the view that the definition of terrorism should be expanded to include a ‘threat of action’ or ‘threatening to commit a terrorist act’.
They argued that this would enhance the prevention of terrorism even before it is actually carried out.
iv) Stakeholders contended that the definition of the term “terrorism financing” at paragraph (iv) which read “for the travel of a person to a State other than the person’s State or residence or nationality for the purpose of perpetration, planning or preparation of, or participation in, terrorist act or the providing or receiving of terrorist training;” seemed to suggest that there would not be nationals or residents committing acts of terrorism in their own countries.
This essentially provided a shield that nationals or residents could not commit acts of terrorism, or at worst, if they engaged in such acts, they may not be deemed to be capable of committing acts of terrorism unless they committed such acts in countries other than their own or where they were ordinarily resident.

They recommended that this definition be refined to include residents and nationals committing crimes of terrorism in their own country.
Clause 3 (4): Jurisdiction of High Court Stakeholders observed that this clause provided for the power of the High Court as the court of competent “jurisdiction to try any offences under this Act”.

They were concerned, however, that it appeared that the scope of the meaning of “offence” in this clause was too wide.

7 There was, therefore, need to categorise the class of “offences” that though committed outside Zambia, would be deemed to have been committed in Zambia.
Clause 5 (1) Establishment of National Anti-Terrorism Centre Some stakeholders were concerned that this clause provided for the continuation of the National Anti-Terrorism Centre, which would be responsible for the enforcement of the Act, but did not provide for who would head the Centre or at least what qualifications they must possess.

Stakeholders, therefore, recommended that this be specified in the bill.
Clause 5 (2): Placement of National Anti-Terrorism Centre (i) (ii) Some stakeholder observed that this provision proposed to establish the National Anti-Terrorism Centre as a unit based at the Ministry responsible for national security and to be under the control and for national security.
supervision of Stakeholders were concerned that this potentially created an ambiguity in that the Ministry responsible for national security may be construed as different from the Ministry responsible for internal security.

the Minister responsible Stakeholders, therefore, recommended that the Bill be amended to ensure consistency in the use of terms to avoid conflict in the administration.
They argued that modern trends suggested that such an institution should be established as an independent entity in the same manner as the Financial Intelligence Centre.
Stakeholders contended further, that the Anti-Terrorism Committee established pursuant to Clause 7(1), and its functions as provided at Clause 8 (control over the policy direction and operational functions of the Centre), would seem to conflict with the proposal that the Minister should have control and supervisory powers over the Centre because it was proposed that the said Committee should comprise representatives from various ministries such as Defence, Home Affairs, Justice and the Office of the President.
In this regard stakeholders suggested that the National Anti-Terrorism Centre be an independent body that should be subject to the direction of the National Anti-Terrorism Committee (NATC) established under Clause 8.

8 Clause 5 (3): Expenses of the Centre Some stakeholders observed that this clause provided that the expenses of the Centre shall be charged upon and issued out of the Consolidated Fund.
However, they were concerned that the term “Consolidated Fund” was not defined anywhere and recommended that for avoidance of doubt the term be clearly defined in the Bill.

Clause 6: Functions of the Centre Some stakeholders noted that at 6(2)(b), the Bill made reference to the functions of the Centre as being, inter alia, to ”integrate and analyze intelligence…” but that it was not clear whether the term integrate referred to gathering or receipt of intelligence.
If not, then it was suggested that the term ‘integrate’ be deleted and be replaced with the words “gathering, collating and receiving”.

Further, the words “terrorism financing,” be inserted at line 2 between the words “terrorism” and “proliferation”.
Clause 6(2) (g): Promotion and Development of Best Practices Stakeholders were of the view that this clause provided for the development and promotion of the adoption of best practices for coordination of law enforcement and others in the combating of terrorism.

They wondered whether there would be no such efforts to address terrorism financing, proliferation and the proliferation financing.
In this regard, they submitted that to be holistic, it was critical that best practices were adopted in respect of all the four offences, namely; terrorism, terrorism financing, proliferation and proliferation financing.

Clause 6 (h) (vii): Ratification and Implementation of International Conventions Stakeholders proposed the insertion of the words “terrorism financing” between the words “terrorism” and proliferation.
” For completeness, all the other subsections that mentioned proliferation financing, in particular, subsections 6(2)(b),6(2)(e) and 6(2)(h)(vii) should also mention terrorism financing.

Clause 7 (1): Establishment of the National Anti-Terrorism Committee (i) Stakeholders were of the view that this clause provided for an even number (ten) of members of the National Anti- Terrorism Committee, which would create problems when it came to voting on certain matters.
They, therefore, proposed that an odd number of members be provided for.

9 (ii) Other stakeholders were of the view that the Radiation Protection Authority (RPA), the institution responsible for ensuring safety and security of radioactive and nuclear materials, be represented on the Committee.

(iii) Further, some stakeholders observed that whereas all other law enforcement agencies were included on the Committee, the Anti- Corruption Commission was conspicuously missing.
In light of this, it was recommended that the Director-General of the Anti- Corruption Commission be included in the membership of the Committee because terrorist activities often flourished where there was corruption.
Clause 7 (c) (viii): Appointment of other Institutions by the President to the Committee (i) (ii) Although Clause 7 (c) (viii) provided that any other relevant institution as the President considers necessary may be appointed to the Committee, the stakeholders were of the view that Zambia Revenue Authority should be expressly provided for as a permanent member of the National Anti- Terrorism Committee as it was responsible for across border trade facilitation.
This position was further fortified by the fact that the Bill gives ZRA immerse powers in Clause 48 (7) to (11).

Some stakeholders observed that there was no provision regarding the regularity and nature of meetings for the Committee, or the manner of regulation of proceedings.

Further there was no provision for the disclosure of interest during meetings.
In this regard, they proposed that relevant provisions be made in the Bill Clause 9 (3): Sub-Committees i) Some stakeholders noted that this sub clause provided that a subcommittee may regulate its own procedure.

They contended that although a committee may regulate its own procedures, this should always be subject to the direction of the National Anti-Terrorism Centre.
ii) Other stakeholders noted that Clause 11(4) implied the existence of the position of Deputy Director but there were no accompanying provisions on such appointment.

There was, therefore, need to have provisions for Deputy or Acting Director.
10 Clause 12 (1): Appointment of Anti-Terrorism Officers and Authorised Officers The stakeholders observed that this clause, which provided that the Committee, in compliance with the Act, would appoint such anti-terrorism officers and authorised officers as may be necessary for the purpose, contradicts Clause 2(1) (k) on the meaning of the term ‘authorised officer’ which provided that an authorised officer was any person appointed as such in writing by the Minister.
As such, they recommended that neither the Minister nor the Committee should appoint authorised officers.

Instead the power to appoint anti-terrorist and authorised officers should be vested in the Director, in consultation with the Committee.

Further, Clause 12(2) should be amended to provide for the issuance of a certificate of appointment to authorised officers as prima facie evidence of their appointment as such.
The Bill should also make a clear distinction between an authorised officer and an Anti-terrorism officer.
Clause 12 (5): Warrant entering on, searching or examining Premises Some stakeholders observed that Subclause 5 provided that a warrant may be obtained on reasonable grounds from a magistrate authorising a terrorism officer to enter on, search or examine the premises prescribed in the warrant in order to determine whether an offence was being or had been committed in those premises and may conduct any examination, inspection and inquiry and do any such things as the terrorism officer may consider necessary for ascertaining “whether the provisions of this Act are being complied with”.
Stakeholders were of the view that when read with Clause 3, it would seem that this might be a triable issue and, in this regard, as the High Court would have jurisdiction under Clause 3, to try all matters under this Act, an application for any such determination ought to be made to a judge of the High Court.
Clause 12(8): Order to stop using Article being used in Contravention of Act Stakeholders noted that this provision ought to give powers to an anti- terrorism officer to order a person to cease using an article which was being operated in contravention of this Act, pending inquiry by the Centre.

They proposed that this power should be subject to interpretation by the Court to avoid arbitrary orders being issued by overzealous operatives.
They contended that rights to property should not be taken away arbitrarily and that in order to ensure that these rights were used only in legally justifiable instances, the acts of the anti-terrorism officers ought to be sanctioned by a court of competent jurisdiction, which in this case was the High Court.
11 Clause 14: Entry by Anti-Terrorism, Proliferation Officer or Authorised persons Some stakeholders observed that the power of entry by anti-terrorism officers appeared to be exercisable without the need to obtain permission from Court.

They submitted that the constitutional right to privacy and use of one’s property should be preserved and should not be unduly taken away.

Rather the power to take these rights way should be subjected to a judicial process.
In order to avoid arbitrary use of such powers it was recommended that such power should be subjected to authorisation by the Court on application and on reasonable grounds being shown to the satisfaction of the Court.

Clause 14(4): Exercise of Power This sub clause provided that a “person” exercising any powers under this Act, shall do so with reasonable care and in such manner that caused as little damage as possible, which seemed to suggest that damage, would occur, albeit minimised.
They contended that, this was a recipe for abuse as it was quite possible that deliberate damage to property may be inflicted or occasioned purely “to fix” a suspect.

They recommended that sanction damages should be payable in such cases to where damage was occasioned to deter arbitrary behaviour on the Part of officers.
Clause 15: Duty to Provide Information to Anti-Terrorism Officer and Authorised Officer Stakeholders proposed that the comma between the words, “terrorism” and “officer” in the marginal note should be deleted.

Clause 17: -Prohibition of Publication of or Disclosure of Information to Unauthorised Persons Some stakeholders were of the view that Clause 17(1) intended to prohibit the publication or disclosure of information to unauthorised persons without consent of the Centre.
However, the Part which read “…otherwise than in the course of duties of that person,” potentially negated the whole intention of the provision.

In effect, it meant that a person could publish or disclose information to an unauthorised person without consent in the course of duty.

They recommended, therefore, that the provision should prohibit the publication or disclosure of information to an unauthorised person, without consent of the Centre whether or not in the course of duty.
12 Clause 19: Prohibition of Terrorism The stakeholders observed that the content of this clause, suggested that it was referring to a person as opposed to organisation.

Therefore, it should refer to a person only.

Clause 23: Weapons of Terrorism and Proliferation Training Some stakeholders observed that the list of weapons that could be made, such as explosives, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons was drafted in an exhaustive list fashion, leaving out devices or the making of devices.
They, therefore, recommended that device be included.

Clause 25: Possession of Article for Terrorist or Proliferation Purposes (i) (ii) Some stakeholders noted that this provision did not include Radiation Safety Officer, as an Authorised Officer, who would play a key role in non-proliferation issues in line with the Non-proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), similar to the functions provided at Clause 48 (7).
In this regard, a Radiation Safety Officer should be included in the definition.

Some stakeholders noted that Clauses 21 to 26, specifically dealt with the prohibition of proliferation and related offences and that in Clause 2, the word “proliferation” was interpreted as including a number of specified acts.

Stakeholders were of the view that, such an interpretation may not be very helpful because it was not exhaustive considering that “proliferation” was treated as an offence under the Bill.
They, therefore, recommended that the term “proliferation” be clearly defined in the interpretation section.

(iii) Stakeholders further observed that whereas the Bill had provided for the investigation of terrorist and proliferation offences, it had not made a provision for the prosecution of the offences nor for the appointment of prosecutors for purposes of prosecuting the offences under the Bill.

The stakeholders, in this regard, recommended that these be provided for.
Clause 38: Causing Damage to Public Place or Facility Stake holders observed that the wording in its current form at Clause 38(1), suggested that an offence was only committed if perpetrated in a public place or involving a public institution or facility.

They argued that in this day and era 13 of cyber crime, an attack may be carried out against a privately-owned facility or assets.
They argued that in the modern era, an attack may be carried out against a privately-owned facility or assets which would have impact on the provision of public services.

An attack on such facilities or installations would have a devastating effect just like an attack on any power generating facility owned by a public utility company.

In this regard they recommended that this proviso should include both private and public places and facilities.
Clause 43: Freezing of Assets of Nationally Listed Persons Stakeholders observed that this Clause provided that notice would be given to a person affected by a seizure notice.

It did not, however, provide for a period within which such notice should be given to the affected person so that such a person could file judicial process challenging the legality or otherwise of such seizure.
Sub-clause 48(6) (c): Prohibition of Procuring and Supplying of Sanctioned Materials and Services Some stakeholders observed that whereas, under Cause 48(6)(c), there was a requirement for a person who directly or indirectly did any act calculated to promote the procurement, supply, etc, of items which were not subject to sanctions, to or from, or brokered by a designated or nationally listed person or entity, must: a. b. follow the requirements of the applicable UN Security Council Sanctions Committee; and notify the relevant Security Council Sanctions Committee within ten days of the supply, sale or transfer of those items, They noted that this provision was only appropriate in respect of individuals and entities listed pursuant to the UNSCR 1267 Sanctions Committee.
However, this procedure was not necessary for nationally-listed individuals and entities that were designated by countries pursuant to the UNSCR 1373 but did not form Part of the UNSCR 1267 Sanctions Committee.

The UNSCR 1267 Sanctions Committee did not maintain a list of such nationally- listed persons.

Stakeholders, therefore, recommended that there should be a distinction between the treatment of persons and entities appearing on the UN Sanctions List and those that were on national listings.
For nationally-listed persons, the notification should be sent to the relevant country that listed the individual or entity as a terrorist or terrorist organisation, respectively.

14 Clause 52 (6) (d): Necessary Extra-Ordinary Expenses Stakeholders observed that Clause 52 (6) (d) provided for the payment of certain expenses and for the manner and procedure for assessing such payments.
However, there was no procedure to be followed in the case of “necessary extra-ordinary expenses” as stated at Clause 52(c) (d).

For expenses falling under Clause 52 (a) (b) (c) and (e), these would be assessed by the Centre.

This provision did not state who would assess the extraordinary expenses.

Stakeholders, therefore, recommended that this aspect be explicitly provided for in the Bill.
Clause 54: Detention Orders (i) Some stakeholders were satisfied with the proposed provision at this Clause which required that detention orders, in as far as they be obtained ex Parte from a judge, were subject to being granted by the court.

They noted that a judge had final decision as the court had to be satisfied that the written consent of the Attorney General had been obtained and that there existed reasonable grounds for the proposed detention.
They applauded the requirement that a detention was required to be video recorded and also that a detainee shall be kept at a place named in the detention order, assuming that detention centres were appropriately resourced with all such facilities to give effect to the legal provisions.
(ii) Notwithstanding the commendation, stakeholders proposed that a specific requirement be made in the law that in the event that there was need to move a detainee, a formal application and variation should be made to the court authorising such variation in the Detention Order.
(iii) Other stakeholders however argued that the requirement for an anti- terrorism officer or authorised officer to first obtain consent of the Attorney General, then apply to a Judge of the High Court for a Detention Order before detaining a person for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence under the Act, may not be favourable in situations which required urgent action to prevent a terrorist act.
Those who held this view recommended that the Director of the Centre should, through the anti-terrorism officers or authorised officers, be given power to apprehend a person or persons upon reasonable suspicion that a terrorist act was being or was about to be committed.

They further proposed that the apprehended persons could be kept in the custody of the Centre for 24 hours to verify the suspicion.
Thereafter, the officer could apply to a Judge for a Detention Order if necessary or release the suspect if there was no evidence.

15 Clause 56: Powers of Investigation in Cases of Emergency While noting that terrorist acts could give rise to emergency situations in which quick interventions would be required.

They accepted, therefore, that in such cases, an investigation may be instituted prior to seeking court approval.
Stakeholders proposed, in this regard, that Clause 56(2) be amended to specifically require that the consent of the Attorney General be obtained before the application is filed for court to make orders as it deems necessary on the merits of the application before it.
Clause 58: Power to Gather Information (i) Some stakeholders observed that Clause 58 (4) (e) did not go further to provide the protection to third parties or whistle blowers and that since the provision of information was key in preventing terrorism , there must be provision to protect people who provided information.
In this regard they proposed that a provision be rafted to cross-reference the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Whistle Blowers) Act, of 2010 (ii) While noting that Clause 58 (6) empowered a judge to make a variation of the terms it gave in an Order, stakeholders contended that this variation should be done after an inter parte hearing of an application by the parties to the matter to ensure that judicial officers did not unilaterally and arbitrarily vary orders they had made previously without hearing all parties concerned.
Clause 66(4): Exchange of Information Stakeholders observed and recommended that the reference to sub clause 4 at line 1, should be a reference to “sub clause 3”.

Clause 69: Establishment of Victims of Terrorism Fund The stakeholders proposed that assets or property forfeited to the state for all terrorist offences should be paid into the Compensation of Victims of Terrorism Fund.

An amendment to provide for this, should therefore, be made in the Bill.
Clause 71: Offences by Principal Officers of Shareholders of Body Corporate or Unincorporated Body The word “of” between the words “officer” and “shareholder” should read “or”.

16 Sanctions Under the Bill Generally Some stakeholders observed that the ultimate sanction provided for offences under the Bill was life imprisonment.

They contended however, that it was a known fact that terrorist acts often led to loss of lives.
They reasoned that the Penal Code Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia treated offences where there was a loss of life as warranting capital punishment.

Equally terrorism should be treated as a capital offence considering its severity.

They, in this regard recommended that acts of terrorism must attract a death penalty and that terrorism and proliferation offences should be non-baillable.
9.0 Committee’s Observations and Recommendations Your Committee is in full support of the Bill as it is more progressive compared to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2007, which is being repealed.

Your Committee is of the view that the Bill, if well administered, could effectively combat terrorism and related activities.
Terrorism and terrorism proliferation and terrorism financing have very serious and devastating consequences which have the potential to weaken the financial system and the entire economy of a nation.

It is commendable that the overall objective of the proposed law is to preserve the security and integrity of Zambia as a sovereign nation, given the ever changing global security realities.
It is hoped that the enactment of the Bill, will enable Zambia to acquire and share knowledge and technology that relates to anti-terrorism and also domesticate the international conventions and treaties on anti-terrorism and proliferation.

Upon carefully considering the concerns raised by the stakeholders, your Committee makes observations and recommendations as set out below.
i) ii) Your Committee notes that although proliferation for non-legal means has been referred to in the Bill, since the Bill outlaws proliferation, it would be inconsistent to leave the title of the Bill as ‘Anti-Terrorism and Proliferation Bill’.

Your Committee, therefore, agrees with the stakeholders that the title be amended to read, “The Anti-Terrorism and Non-Proliferation Bill”.
Your Committee notes that although Clause 5 (1) provides for the continuation of the National Anti-Terrorism Centre, which shall be responsible for the enforcement of the Act, it does not provide for who will head the Centre and the qualifications or attributes the person must possess.

Your Committee, in this regard, recommends that the Head of the Centre and their requisite qualifications be provided for in the Bill.
17 iii) Your Committee observes that Clause 5 (2) provides for the establishment of the National Anti-Terrorism Centre as a unit based at the Ministry responsible for national security and to be under the control and supervision of the Minister responsible for internal security.

Your Committee notes, first and foremost, that the assumption that ‘Minister responsible for Internal Security’ mean one and the same thing, is erroneous and a recipe for confusion.
‘Minister of National Security’ and Your Committee, in this regard, recommends that only one term, especially ‘Ministry responsible for Home Affairs’ be used in the Bill.

Further, your Committee recommends that in keeping with modern trends, the National Anti-Terrorism Centre, which has been placed under the Ministry responsible for national security, be established as an autonomous entity on the same lines as the Financial Intelligence Centre and other independent law enforcement agencies.
This is particularly necessary because the Anti-Terrorism Committee, which has control over the policy direction and operational functions of the Centre, comprises representatives from various ministries including the Office of the President.

Your Committee is of the view that placing it under the charge of a ministry would create challenges in terms of channels of command and reporting structures.
Your Committee, therefore, recommends that the National Anti- Terrorism Centre be an independent body subject to the direction of the National Anti-Terrorism Committee (NATC), established under Clause 8. iv) Your Committee observes that the Bill, at Clause 6(2) (b), makes reference to the functions of the Centre as being, inter alia, to “integrate and analyse intelligence…” However, it is not clear whether the term ‘integrate’ refers to gathering or receiving of intelligence.
Your Committee is of the view that if that if it is not the intention, then the term ‘integrate’ should be deleted and be replaced with the words “gathering, receiving and collating”.

Further, your Committee recommends that to cater for all offences stipulated in the Bill, the words “terrorism financing,” are inserted at line 2 between the words “terrorism” and “proliferation”.
Further the ‘prevention’ function conferred to the Centre by Clause 6 (1), be expanded at Clause 6 (2) to include the function of conducting public awareness on the 18 prevention of terrorism and developing strategies such as counter- terrorism or de-radicalisation v) vi) Your Committee notes that ‘terrorism financing’ has been omitted at Clause 6 (h) (vii) between the words “terrorism” and proliferation ” and, therefore, recommends that for completeness, all the other subsections that mention proliferation financing, in particular, Clauses 6(2)(b),6(2)(e) and 6(2)(h)(vii) should also mention terrorism financing.
Cognisant of the provision at Clause 7 (c) (viii) that any other relevant institution as the President considers necessary, may be appointed to the National Anti- Terrorism Committee, your Committee notes that Clause 7(1) provides for an even number of ten members of the Committee, which would cause problems when it comes to voting on certain matters.

the inclusion, on Your Committee, in this vein, recommends that, as a norm, the membership should be an odd number.
Further, your Committee recommends the National Anti-Terrorism Committee, of such institutions like the Radiation Protection Authority (RPA) which is responsible for ensuring the safety and security or radioactive and nuclear materials and the Zambia Revenue Authority, which has been assigned immerse powers in Clause 48 (7) to (11).
vii) Your Committee notes that the existence of Deputy or Acting Director is only implied at Clause 11(4) and that there are no including accompanying provisions on such an appointment qualifications.

Your Committee, therefore, recommends that the position of Deputy Director, its functions mode of appointment and qualifications be provide for in the Bill.
viii) Your Committee agrees with the stakeholders who contended that the appointment of Anti-Terrorism Officers and Authorised Officers, by the Committee, as provided for at Clause 12 (1), contradicts Clause 3 which provided that ‘an authorised officer is any person appointed as such in writing by the Minister.’ Your Committee, therefore, recommends that the power to appoint authorised officers should be vested in the Director, in consultation with the Committee, and not in the Minister or the Committee.
Further, Clause 12 (2) should be amended to provide for the 19 issuance of a certificate of appointment to authorised officers, as a prima facie evedince of their appointment as such.

The Bill should also make a clear distinction between an ‘authorised officer’ and an ‘anti-terrorism officer’.
ix) Your Committee notes that Clause 12(8) gives powers to an anti- terrorism officer to order a person to cease using an article which is being operated in contravention of this Act, pending inquiry by the Centre, but does not subject this power to any other authority.

Your Committee is of the view that this power may be used arbitrarily by the officers.
Your Committee, therefore, recommends that in view of the fact that rights to property should not be taken away arbitrarily and in order to ensure that these powers are used only in legally justifiable instances, the acts of the anti-terrorism officers ought to be sanctioned by a court of competent jurisdiction, which is the High Court.
x) Your Committee notes that in spite of being a key institution in non- proliferation issues in line with the Non-proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), and the functions provided at Clause 48 (7), a Radiation Safety Officer is not included in Clause 25 for appointment as an Authorised Officer.

inclusion of a Your Committee, therefore, recommends the ‘Radiation Safety Officer’ as an authorised officer as defined in the Bill.
xi) Your Committee notes that the provision at Clause 38(1) seems to imply that an offence is only committed if perpetrated involving a public place, institution or facility.

Your Committee is of the view that in the modern era, an attack may be launched against a privately-owned facility or asset, which has a bearing on public life or activities.

To this effect, your Committee recommends that this proviso should be expanded to encompass both private and public places and facilities.
xii) Your Committee observes that whereas Clause 43 provides that notice will be given to a person affected by a seizure notice before the freezing of assets of Nationally Listed Persons, it does not prescribe a period within which such notice should be given to the affected person so that, where necessary, judicial review or other 20 application, could be filed in court challenging the legality or otherwise of such seizure.
Your Committee, therefore, recommends that for avoidance of doubt, this provision be cross-referenced to the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act, 2010, as has been done at Clause 37. xiii) Your Committee, notes that there is a requirement under Clause 48 (6) (c), for a person who directly or indirectly does any act calculated to promote the procurement, supplies items which are not subject to sanctions, to or from, or brokered by a designated or nationally listed person or entity, to: 1. follow the requirements of the applicable UN Security Council Sanctions Committee; and 2. notify the relevant Security Council Sanctions Committee within ten days of the supply, sale or transfer of those items, However, this provision is only appropriate in respect of individuals and entities listed pursuant to the UNSCR 1267 Sanctions Committee and that this procedure is not necessary that are for nationally-listed designated by countries pursuant to the UNSCR 1373 but do not form Part of the UNSCR 1267 Sanctions Committee, because the UNSCR 1267 Sanctions Committee does not maintain a list of such nationally-listed persons.
individuals and entities Your Committee, therefore, recommends that a distinction be drawn between the treatment of persons and entities appearing on the UN Sanctions List and those that are on national listings and that for nationally-listed persons, the notification should be sent to the relevant country that listed the individual or entity as a terrorist or terrorist organisation, respectively.
xiv) Your Committee observes that Clause 52 (6) (d) provided for the payment of certain expenses and for the manner and procedure for assessing such payments.

However, there is no procedure to be followed in the case of “necessary extra-ordinary expenses” as stated at paragraph (d), neither does it state who shall assess the extraordinary expenses.

Your Committee, therefore, recommends that this aspect be explicitly provided for in the Bill.
xv) Your Committee notes and supports the provision at Clause 54 which requires that a detention shall be video recorded and also that 21 a detainee shall be kept at a place named in the Detention Order, as these provisions will enhance the respect for human rights.

Your Committee, however, expresses worry at whether all detention centres will be appropriately equipped with such facilities to give effect to this legal provision.
Your Committee, in this regard, recommends that all detention facilities be equipped with video recording equipment and that a specific requirement be made in the Bill that in the event that there is need to move a detainee, a formal application and variation should be made to the court authorising such variation in the Detention Order.
xvi) Your Committee observes that while Clause 58 (4) (e) provides for the protection of the interests of the persons named in the Order and of the third parties or for the protection of any ongoing investigations, it does not explicitly provide for the protection of whistle blowers.
Your Committee therefore recommends that for avoidance of doubt, this provision be cross-referenced to the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Whistle Blowers) Act, of 2010. xvii) Your Committee, while noting that terrorist acts would give rise to emergency situations in order to address the situation and accepting, therefore, that in such cases, an investigation may be instituted prior to seeking court approval, your Committee recommends that Clause 56 (2) be amended to specifically require that the consent of the Attorney General (as in Clause 55) should be obtained before the application is filed for the Court to make orders as it deems necessary and that such Order of Court shall be firmly on the basis of the Court being satisfied with the merits of the application before it.
xviii) Your Committee notes that Clause 69 provides for what will be paid into the Victims of Terrorism Fund, including fines, grants, gifts, donations, or bequests or such other monies payable to the Fund by law.

However, this provision does not mention or provide for how assets or property forfeited to the state from terrorism offenders will be disbursed.

Your Committee, in this vein, recommends that the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act, 2010, be cross-referenced.
Further the provision should be amended to the effect that assets or property forfeited to the state for all terrorist offences shall be used exclusively 22 for the compensation of Victims of Terrorism and that any variation to this use should be approved by Parliament.

10.0 Conclusion Your Committee wishes to express its gratitude to all stakeholders who appeared before it and tendered both oral and written submissions.
Your Committee wishes to thank you Mr Speaker, for affording it an opportunity to scrutinise the Anti-Terrorism and Proliferation Bill, N.A.B No.

4 of 2018, for the Second Session of the Twelfth National Assembly, referred to it on 27th March, 2018.

Your Committee also appreciates the services rendered by the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly.
We have the Honour to be, Sir, your Committee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, tasked to scrutinise the Anti-Terrorism and Proliferation Bill, N.A.B No.

4 of 2018, for the Second Session of the Twelfth National Assembly.
23 Dr M Malama, MP; (Chairperson) Ms A M Chisangano, MP; (Vice-Chairperson) Mr E J Muchima, MP; (Member) Brig Gen M Sitwala, MP; (Member) Mr K Mbangweta, MP; (Member) Mr L Nyirenda, MP; (Member) Ms M Miti, MP; (Member) Mr F N’gambi, MP; (Member) Mr A B Malama, MP; and (Member) Mr E K Belemu, MP.
(Member) June 2018 LUSAKA Dr M Malama, MP CHAIRPERSON 24 Appendix I List of Witnesses Ministry of Justice Mrs A K Bwalya, Chief Parliamentary Counsel Mr G Muntengwa, Senior Parliamentary Counsel Ms L Mukuka, Parliamentary Counsel Ministry of Home Affairs Mrs P C Kabamba, Permanent Secretary Mr H Zimba, Director, Anti-Terrorism Centre Mr C Simwanza, Deputy Director, Anti-Terrorism Centre Mr M Kabushi, Legal Officer, Special Division Mr P Choolwe, Assistant Director, Research and Planning Mr J Daka, Legal Officer Zambia Police Service Mr E Peteli, Principal Research Officer Ministry of Defence Ms M Sikazwe, Acting Permanent Secretary Mr E L Zimba, Acting Director, Research and Planning Mr F Mwansa, Acting Public Relations Officer Mr Z D Nkuwa, Zambia National Service Secretary Col. F C Kande, Deputy Air Secretary Col M C Mayaka, Director Maj M N Mulenga Zambia National Service Legal Officer Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mr R Simwinga, Permanent Secretary, Administration Mr K Mwila, Director, Human Resources Mr E Chinyonga, Acting Director Ms C Moonga, Assistant Director Ms K Mayondi Phiri, Principal Planner Bank of Zambia Mr J Munyoro, Director Radiation Protection Authority Mr B Siwila, Chief Executive Officer Mr K Mushaukwa, Director Protection Services Mrs M Kapeya, Legal Officer Zambia Information and Communication Technology Authority (ZICTA) Mr M Chisenge, Acting, Director General Mr T Muluwe, Director, Legal Services 25 Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) Mrs M C Tshuma, Director General Mr C Kapalu, Director, Monitoring and Analysis Mr D Tembo, Director, Compliance and Prevention Mrs C Kalemba, Acting Director, Legal and Policy Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Mr S Muchula, Chief, Legal Department Mr C Moonga, Director, Legal Department Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) Ms A Mbahwe, Commissioner Mr J Akapelwa, Principal State Advocate Mr M Kwaleyela, Chief Investigator Bankers’ Association of Zambia Mr L Mwanza, Chief Executive Officer Ms M Zimba, Public Relations Officer Mr D Chansa, Compliance Officer, FNB Ms N Mukaya, Chief Compliance Officer, CITI Bank The Law Association of Zambia Mr M A Musukwa, Vice President Mr M Liweleya, Member Zambia Revenue Authority Mr K Chanda, Commissioner General Mr M Mukwasa, Director, Legal Mr E Phiri, Director, Research 26 Appendix II List of National Assembly Officials Ms C Musonda, Principal Clerk of Committees Mr F Nabulyato, Deputy Principal Clerk of Committees (SC) Mr H Mulenga Deputy Principal Clerk of Committees (FC) Mr S Chiwota, Senior Committee Clerk Mr C Chishimba, Committee Clerk Mr D Mwinamo, Legal Officer Mrs S Mwale, Personal Secretary II Mr M Chikome, Committee Assistant 27